Introduction
The word “context” is derived from the Latin contexere, con stemming from “com”, which means “together”, and “text” from texere, which means “to weave”. Hence, context means “to weave together”: it simultaneously affects business, and it comes in many shapes and forms (Van Gelderen and Masurel 2012: 2).
Context is important: it helps us to explain why certain individuals, like entrepreneurs (hereafter referred to as small business owners) recognize opportunities and others do not, and why the outcomes of entrepreneurial activities, such as starting a small business, vary across different countries, regions, and other contexts (Baker et al. 2005). Recently, there is a growing interest in the context in which economic behaviour, like starting a small business as a form of entrepreneurship, occurs (Hjorth et al. 2008; Welter 2011; Welter and Xheneti 2013; Zahra and Wright 2011; Zahra et al. 2014).
Context has been discussed in terms of who, where, and when (Whetten 1989). The “where” and the “when” are of particular interest for entrepreneurship research (Welter 2011), because these influence the “who”, i.e. the individual. In regard to the “where” and the “when”, the context has been set out in different levels of analyses, such as the business level (i.e. industry, market), the social level (i.e. network, household, family), the spatial level (i.e. geographical environments), and the institutional level (i.e. culture and society) (Johns 2006; Welter 2011). However, an important unanswered question remains on the research agenda: Is it possible to contextualize entrepreneurship by focusing on situational and temporal boundaries? “Contextualisation” is “linking observations to a set of relevant facts, events, or points of view that make possible research and theory that form part of a larger whole” (Rousseau and Fried 2001: 1). In doing so, we could more adequately tackle important challenges, as discussed by Welter (2011) in terms of developing research designs. In this
Point of Departure
In this chapter, I rely on personal observations from extensive qualitative and quantitative data collection among entrepreneurship experts and small business owners in the formal and informal economies in the East African ldcs. During five years, I collected data for studies in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and
- 1) The study in Uganda investigates entrepreneurial motivation by answering the research question: Which entrepreneurial motivation is more important for people in a Least Developed Country to start a business: Push factors or pull factors?. On the basis of 11 expert interviews and 106 questionnaires completed by kiosk-owners in Kampala, the answer to the research question is that push factors and pull factors are not mutually exclusive. Here, pull factors dominate the push factors as the small business owners’ entrepreneurial motivation (Eijdenberg 2016a: 185; also see Eijdenberg and Masurel 2013).
- 2) Subsequently, the study in Rwanda investigates entrepreneurial motivation as a determinant for small business growth by answering the research question: To what extent is small business growth in a Least Developed Country determined by the small business owner’s entrepreneurial motivation?. On the basis of a pre-study with 25 experts and a main study of 133 owners of handicraft shops in Kigali and Gisenyi, the answer is that small business growth is primarily predicted by two groups of entrepreneurial motivations: one group with a mix of motivations, and one group with predominantly opportunity motivation (Eijdenberg 2016a: 185; see also Eijdenberg et al. 2015).
- 3) The study in Burundi investigates how small business owners’ decision-making, in terms of effectuation and causation orientations, can determine the growth of their small business. The following research question is answered: To what extent is the growth of small businesses in an uncertain environment determined by the owners’ effectuation and causation orientation? on the basis of 29 expert interviews and 154 questionnaires completed by mini-market owners. The results show that while effectuation-oriented small business owners perceive more uncertainty, both effectuation and causation orientations have little effect on the growth of the small businesses (see Eijdenberg 2016a: 185–186; see also Eijdenberg et al. 2017).
- 4) Finally, the study in Tanzania investigates how entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial orientation determine the development of personal wealth of subsistence entrepreneurs in the informal economy. On the basis of a pre-study with 27 experts and a main study of 152 questionnaires from informal food vendors in Iringa, the answer to the research question: To what extent is the development of the personal wealth of subsistence entrepreneurs in the informal economy associated with entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial orientation? is that entrepreneurial motivation and entrepreneurial orientation do not play an important role as predictors for small business growth. The development of personal wealth is partly determined by the subsistence entrepreneur’s age (see Eijdenberg 2016a, 2016b).
Research on geographical contexts such as the above-mentioned East African ldcs are referred to as “non-traditional contexts” (Kriauciunas et al. 2011), and are different from the “traditional” contexts, i.e. the United States and Western Europe. These “non-traditional contexts” often involve major difficulties with data collection (Kolk and Van Tulder 2010). The observations are based on studies that aim to explain small business growth as an important significant driver of economic development. I have looked at how small business owners engage with their immediate context (Van Gelderen and Masurel 2012), in terms of their entrepreneurial motivation, effectuation and causation orientations (Sarasvathy 1998, 2001) and entrepreneurial orientation (Hughes and Morgan 2007). As a result, my epistemological position is one of “positivism”: “collecting data about an observable reality and search for regularities and causal relationships” (Saunders et al. 2012: 134). This implies making use of existing theories to develop and test hypotheses. The main reason for this is that the theoretical subjects in the studies are in the “mature” phase of the literature (Edmonson and McManus 2007); that is to say, they are significantly developed and empirical evidence has been produced from Western countries, such as Germany, and non-Western countries, such as South Africa (see, for example, Brettel et al. 2012; Krauss et al. 2005).
Each study in one of the East African ldcs (i–iv) contained one or more of the aforementioned theoretical subjects that could possibly explain small business growth. The items in the surveys in each country were marginally adjusted on the basis of: (a) an ongoing literature review prior to the data collection; (b) pre-studies of expert interviews prior to the quantitative data collection among the small business owners; and (c) the confirmation from a pilot group of (generally) 10 respondents and local assistance on the spot while completing the surveys.
The next section briefly reflects on the relevant literature of entrepreneurship and the East African ldcs.
Reflections Based on Existing Scientific Literature
Entrepreneur(ship)
Entrepreneurship literature incorporates many perspectives on “the entrepreneur”. For example, the Austrian school sees the entrepreneur as an economic actor of Schöpferische Zerstörung, i.e. creative destruction, who drives economic development (Kirzner 1997; Schumpeter 1934). In the context of East African ldcs, the most applicable term for “the entrepreneur” is the “small business owner”, which could mean “a person (or group of people) who creates a new business (for profit) and employs at least one other paid employee” (Kirkwood 2009: 350). Small business owners in East African ldcs are becoming increasingly important, and they represent one of the important drivers of a country’s economic development (Audretsch et al. 2006; Baumol et al. 2007; Powell 2008), and when they are perceived as the means for poverty alleviation (Naudé 2011). Fighting poverty is important country-wide, but it is particularly relevant for the most vulnerable people at the bottom of the pyramid (BoP). Many of these vulnerable small business owners in the BoPs of East African ldcs are active in the informal economy. In the context of East African ldcs, informal business ownership particularly concerns the role of “informal institutions in facilitating, organizing and transacting” (Webb et al. 2014: 8). Entrepreneurial activity outside the formal institutional boundaries but within the informal institutional boundaries entails “how entrepreneurs operate informal institutional voids by drawing upon informal institutions as providing complementary, substitute mechanisms for organizing and transacting” (Webb et al. 2014: 8). Schneider (2005: 600) describes business in the informal economy as “all market-based legal production of goods and services that are deliberately concealed from public authorities for reasons of taxation, employment, and administrative regulation.” Many of the small business owners in East African ldcs organise themselves in micro- and small-sized enterprises (mses) (Kiggundu 2002). mses are generally one-person operations; they are poorly managed, sometimes temporary, usually not very productive and they are often undercapitalised. Among various types of businesses in the informal economy, such as undocumented workers, unregistered businesses and trader-tourism, the skirting of different sorts of institutional regulations is common among mses: the “mama lishe” in Tanzania, a Kiswahili term for informal food vendors. “Mama lishe” mainly sell local dishes and beverages. In many cases, the owners of such businesses have other, additional jobs. These jobs are unrelated to their “mama lishe” and are usually done outside of the peak hours, such as being a taxi driver or a cell phone card vendor. The majority of “mama lishe” can be found in the city centres or along important, often congested roads and railways, where many people pass by to stop and have a quick bite, lunch or dinner. Many “mama lishe” prepare food and sell from little, often self-built premises, but they also operate with mobile food carts on the street. “Street-vending is a key element of this informal economy and important to surviving poverty and to the escape from poverty in developing countries” (Lyons et al. 2014: 4).
East African ldcs
A common distinction, concerning context, is made between the narrow (micro), and the wider setting (meso and macro). The narrow setting involves the “life-space”, or close environment, of the individual or the group. For example, the immediate social setting and the individual circumstances, such as one’s preferences and intentions (Van Gelderen and Masurel 2012). Before the micro context is discussed, the wider setting, which is the institutional context in terms of, for example, the economic and cultural society, is discussed. Subsequently, the third section deals with the methodological concerns from the narrow setting, i.e. the micro context: “one’s circumstances”.
Institutional Context: The Economy in East African ldcs
In the wider setting, “Africa is a diverse continent with distinct historic, economic, and social traditions” (Khavul et al. 2009: 1221). The continent has approximately one-seventh of the world’s population, divided into 54 independent states on about 20.3% of the world’s surface. Furthermore, “low population density means that the cost of economic integration in terms of transportation is high. When the land is sparsely settled, groups come together less, and thus have less in common, which, in turn, undermines economic integration, knowledge transfer, and trade based on comparative advantage” (Ibid.). Liberalisation policies of the governments in East Africa have resulted in an expanding free market and international trade, which have favoured the development of economies (Kristiansen 2002). From the 34 African ldcs, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda form an economic community with Kenya, a non-ldc: the East African Community (East African Community 2014), in the “Great Lakes” region of Africa (Edmonds et al. 2009; Eijdenberg 2016a: 4–5). Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda are discussed briefly below.
Bujumbura is Burundi’s capital. The country has approximately 10.4 million people living on the country’s surface of almost 28,000 square kilometres. The median age is 17 years. While the gross domestic product (gdp) growth rate in 2013 was an estimated 4.5%, the gdp per capita was an estimated $600 in 2013. The economy is largely dependent on agriculture and the primary exports are coffee and tea (Central Intelligence Agency 2015a). Kigali is the capital of Rwanda, a country of approximately 12.3 million people living on a surface of roughly 26,000 square kilometres. The median age is 18.7 years. While the gdp growth rate in 2013 was an estimated 7.5%, the gdp per capita was $1500 in 2013. Agriculture accounts for Rwanda’s largest economic sector and tourism, minerals, coffee and tea are the main exports (Central Intelligence Agency 2015b). Concerning Tanzania: while Dodoma is the legislative seat, Dar Es Salaam is the largest, commercial city and capital. The country counts ap
Institutional Context: Culture of East African ldcs
The information about East African culture and society in entrepreneurship literature is scarce. East African ldcs host many different ethnic groups: Burundi and Rwanda has three large ethnic groups, which are the Hutu, Tutsi, and the Twa; Uganda has more than ten substantial ethnic groups, the largest of which is the Baganda; and Tanzania is home to more than 130 ethnic groups (Central Intelligence Agency 2015a, 2015b, 2015c, 2015d). While ethnic diversity is generally a “positive aspect of society when accompanied by democracy” (Khavul et al. 2009: 1221), autocracy and concentration of power generally prevail in East African countries. Notwithstanding the autocracy and concentration of power, particularly within and across the ethnic groups, the traditional East African culture is largely collectivist. However, times are changing. The contrast between rural and urban regions have become larger. In the large cities, such as the capitals, the traditional African collective culture has increasingly changed into a more individualistic culture (Rooks et al. 2014). This change happens due to reasons such as modernisation and internationalisation, and a growing population with an increasing number of different, interacting ethnic goups (Vaunne and Schoeneman 1997).
For centuries, the extended family, which can be explained as a large group of family members with differing degrees of relativeness, has represented a sanctuary for many people in East Africa (Dau 2003). Therefore, the social ties within a specific group in East Africa, for example an extended family, are strong (Khavul et al. 2009). Due to a lack of easily accessible resources in the vicinity or an inability to optimally exploit resources, the majority strongly rely on their social networks in order to bring about an economic transaction, such as the exchange of a product or a service. Mutually beneficial cooperation is typical for extended families in African society (Otite 1978). Traditional East African culture has norms and values with a clear “gender divide” (Hagos
More information about East African culture and society, in relation to management and business, can be found in other social science disciplines, such as cultural and anthropological literature. A quick glance at some literature from cultural studies shows that “whereas Western management thought advocates Euro-centrism, individualism and modernity; African management thought emphasizes ethnocentrism, traditionalism, communalism and cooperative teamwork” (Nzelibe 1986: 11). While there is no “one African culture”, there are some other examples beyond the previously described “presence” of collectivist culture in Africa. Particularly in the larger organisations or the public sector, people can live by diverging values and beliefs, as typified by Jackson (2004: 20–21): “post-colonial”, “post-instrumental”, “African renaissance” (which mostly relates to collectivism), and “East Asian/Japanese”. According to some older sources, many of the previously mentioned African culture types in the large organisations and the public sector imply very centralised and hierarchical structures, with the management often overworking, but adopting an authoritarian and paternalistic decision style (Kiggundu 1989). The organisations are too large, very bureaucratic and they are reluctant to change (Blunt and Jones 1992). These organisations lack clear results and objectives orientation; they lack a clear mission statement (Kiggundu 1989); they are often over-staffed, but have very few job descriptions, job evaluations and incentive systems; and they have a poor internal infrastructure (Joergensen 1990). As a result, people with a paid job at such organisations are often very risk averse, demotivated, unwilling to take independent action, often absent, have poor morale, and are unproductive (Kiggundu 1989). While some employees might lose their job because of one or more of the aforementioned factors, and are therefore pushed to start a small business for themselves, others “voluntarily” quit their paid job
Concerning the collectivist culture, as previously discussed using an example from the entrepreneurship literature (i.e. Rooks et al. 2014), many Africans live by the concept of Ubuntu (Mufene 2003). This concept involves tolerance and kindness and it emphasises helping others as a way of helping oneself: there is a collective well-being and activity as opposed to individualism; there is a unification as opposed to division; and there is respect for elders and sharing (Saule 1998). With regard to Ubuntu, there is an overlap with other, comparative studies on (East) African culture. For example, Noorderhaven and Tidjani (2001), who find that the most important African values are human goodness, rules and hierarchy, importance of religion, traditional wisdom, sharing, collectivism, and social responsibility. Furthermore, African scholars (for example, Akong’a 1995; Ahiazu 1995) suggest that there are African values and beliefs that influence everyday behaviour, including making decisions about starting and running a business (Onwuejeogwu 1995). These values and beliefs are (quoted from Munene et al. 2000: 342):
- 1. View the world as an integrated whole in which all events are traceable to one source.
- 2. Ground practical/common-sense thinking in proverbs.
- 3. Root theoretical thinking in mysticism.
- 4. View truth as depending on one’s relationship with or the status of its source.
- 5. Fully trust relatives but not strangers.
- 6. Maintain order in life by avoiding unnecessary risks.
- 7. View wisdom as thought and behavior in harmony with one’s ancestors.
- 8. Define wisdom as making the best of available opportunities.
- 9. See success as dependent on help or hindrance by powerful others.
- 10. See advancement as dependent on allegiance to powerful groups or individuals.
In particular, point four “View truth as depending on one’s relationship with or the status of its source” and point five “Fully trust relatives but not strangers,” are related to the previously discussed value of the extended family in Africa
Methodological Concerns of Conducting Research in the World’s Poorest Countries
In this section, the methodological concerns are discussed regarding the literature reflections and the personal observations from the studies in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania. The concerns are mainly to do with the aforementioned narrow setting: the micro context, i.e. the personal circumstances of the respondents and the researcher at the time of the data collection. Although researching context is interesting, the methodologies are challenging (Van Gelderen and Masurel 2012). While qualitative studies have included context factors in their work of understanding a certain phenomenon (for example, Gartner and Birley 2002; Steyaert 1997), quantitative studies of context are also highly valuable, for example when it concerns comparative methods and replication research (Van Gelderen and Masurel 2012): hence, the positivist position of the studies in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania (Saunders et al. 2012). Comparative methods allow the comparison of a phenomenon in multiple settings (Rousseau and Fried 2001). Replicated studies are useful to test whether, for example, widely known theories from one context also hold in other, often substantially different contexts (Van Gelderen and Masurel 2012). Concerning replication studies, the remainder of this chapter discusses the methodological challenges that are observed from replicating theoretical subjects that are widely discussed in the entrepreneurship literature: entrepreneurial motivation (the studies in Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania), effectuation and causation orientations (the study in Burundi), entrepreneurial orientation (the study in Tanzania), and the growth measurement of a small business (the studies in Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania).
Many studies of (East) African ldcs in the entrepreneurship literature refer to different types of methodological shortcomings in terms of, for example: a limited number of regions that were included (Rooks et al. 2014); the use of only a cross-sectional research design (Frese et al. 2007; Frese et al. 2002; Krauss et al. 2005); difficulties with the use of certain (in)dependent variables in a study to capture a subject, particularly the subject of business performance (Frese et al. 2002, 2007; Krauss et al. 2005); difficulties with obtaining reliable data from the businesses that are dealt with (Kuzilwa 2005); and shortcomings in terms
The common denominator in the studies in Table 2.1 is that, on the one hand, the theoretical subjects under study are all established among the respondents, i.e. they can be measured and they do exist. On the other hand, the causal relationships that are studied (e.g. entrepreneurial motivation, effectuation and causation orientations, and entrepreneurial orientation on small business growth) are either absent or do not have sufficient explanatory power. On the basis of Table 2.1, the next sections discuss the challenges observed in relation to the collection of qualitative data and quantitative data in East African ldcs. In these sections, the letters [a] to [m] in the third column of “Methodological concerns” are further explained.
Qualitative Data Collection in East African ldcs
The studies in the East African ldcs followed a “qual → quan” mixed methods approach (Molina-Azorin et al. 2012: 442). The purpose of a qualitative pre-study is: (1) to obtain a general overview of the subject in the local context and to shape the questionnaire in the main study according to the local context; and (2) to specify who would be the most appropriate respondents. In the qualitative pre-studies, so-called experts are used to gain “in-depth knowledge of specific industry, and local and regional contexts” and “to inform the design of survey questions for structured interviewing” (Molina-Azorin et al. 2012: 435). In general, the pre-studies were finished after 20 to 30 interviews, at which the point of minimal incremental learning was reached and phenomena were reported repetitively (Eisenhardt 1989; Glaser and Strauss 1967). The experts were, for example, representatives and policymakers from the Chamber of Commerce; representatives from business incubators; local small business owners who were recognised as “successful” by the representatives of local authorities, such as the Chamber of Commerce; representatives from governmental institutions (for example, ministries); managers from the financial
Experienced Challenges with Qualitative Data Collection in East African ldcs
First, there are language difficulties while doing research in East African ldcs (Table 2.1, [a]). Arranging interviews, and communication with local people who are involved with the previously mentioned methodologies often takes place through interpreters. Thus, a “lost in translation” situation often arises, already at the organising phase, while the actual interview about the content was still to come. Misunderstandings about the time, date and location of the set-up with the interviewees frequently occurred. In addition to the language difficulties, there was a variety of difficulties with organising the interviews on location. Some notable examples are: no-shows of interviewees; not replying to e-mails, phone calls and text messages; demands for different sorts of incentives for the interview, ranging from pens and pencils to money and cell phones; interrupting and leaving the interview abruptly; and attending the interview with uninvited individuals, such as family and friends. Occasionally, the respondents insisted that these uninvited people participated in the interview.
Second, there are difficulties in finding the right people for an interview (Table 2.1, [b]). Although there was not always the evidence to prove so, I often had the feeling that I was directed to interviewees who were friends, family or acquaintances of the local research assistants or of the people at the office that I first approached for contact. In certain cases, the use of the people’s local social networks delivered outstanding interviewees, such as the Burundian Minister of Trade and Industry, Postal Services and Tourism and city mayors; but in other cases it led to clearly the wrong people for an interview, such as unexperienced policy officers with limited knowledge of my topic of interest. Furthermore, while it was expected that certain interviewees at mid-senior or senior level of experience would have mastered the English language, the reality was that many were unable to speak and understand English. This difficulty led in some cases, again, to a “lost in translation” situation with regard to communication between the researcher, the interpreter and the interviewee. For example, at one interview in Iringa, a city in Southern Tanzania, the interviewee (the city mayor) responded extensively, over several minutes, to the researcher’s question “What motivates people in this city to start a small
Quantitative Data Collection in East African ldcs
The main studies in the East African ldcs entailed quantitative data collection of samples with between 100 and 160 respondents. In each of the East African ldcs, I conducted the questionnaires with small business owners who often operate in so-called small- and medium-sized enterprises (smes) and the previously discussed mses. The respondents were small business owners in both the formal and informal economy. In the formal economy, the respondents were predominantly owners of mini-markets and handicraft shops. The small business owners were producing and selling groceries, utensils, beverages, prepared food, airtime credits for mobile phones, small furniture and handcrafted products for tourists, such as wooden masks and necklaces. For the informal economy, I administered the questionnaires on the previously discussed typical Tanzanian small business: the “mama lishe”.
The choice for each sample of small business owners was based on: (a) the suggestions from the experts in the pre-studies, and (b) achieving a sufficient number of these suggested small business owners in the region to ensure statistical power for the analysis: using the rule of thumb of “N must be at least 50 + 8m”, where m represents the number of independent variables in the study (Tabachnick and Fidell 2007). The most effective type of sampling was the snowball sampling methodology, which involves going from one respondent to the other (Saunders et al. 2012). The help of local assistants was crucial: they helped with conducting the quantitative survey, in terms of language translation and introducing me to the respondents. Without the help of the local assistants, most likely the rounds of data collection would not have been so successful. As I had face-to-face contact with the respondents and let the respondents complete the questionnaire on the spot, I achieved very high response rates (approximately 95%–99%). The few small business owners who caused the non-response rate refused cooperation because of lack of time and worries about confidentiality.
Observed Limitations with Quantitative Data Collection in East African ldcs
First (1), there is a difference in interpretation by the respondents between direct and indirect phrased items in the questionnaire (Table 2.1, [c]). Direct items concern items including the word that covers the theoretical concept. For example, when the respondent is asked in the questionnaire about their necessity motivation, a direct item would be “Have you started your business out of necessity?” In contrast to direct items, indirect items, or descriptive items, describe the content of the theoretical concept without using the word that covers the theoretical concept. For example, when the respondent is asked in the questionnaire about their necessity motivation, an indirect item would be “Have you started your business because you needed to sustain your family?” Frequently, the respondents filled out the direct and indirect questions in a contradictory manner: for example, while the direct item was answered with “Agree” or “Strongly agree”, the indirect item was answered with “Disagree” or “Strongly disagree” on the same five-point Likert scale of ascending order responses (i.e. the value “1” represents “Strongly disagree”; the value “2” represents “Disagree”; the value “3” represents “Not sure”; the value “4” represents “Agree”; and the value “5” represents “Strongly agree”).
Second (2), while there was reason to believe on the basis of the literature that there were generally positive effects on small business growth from entrepreneurial motivation, effectuation and causation orientations, and entrepreneurial orientation, a number of effects were significantly negative and in some cases, the effects were totally absent (Table 2.1, [d]). For example, in one of the studies in the East African ldcs, there are only a few significant (and negative) effects from the effectuation and causation orientations on small business growth.
Third (3), concerning small business growth, many of the small business growth items were included in the questionnaire on the basis of a pre-study with experts and a pilot study among small business owners. However, while the owners mainly indicated that their small business has grown over a certain period of time, often the small business growth measures turned out to be irrelevant in the regression models, because there was no model significance reached (Table 2.1, [e]) (see, for example, Eijdenberg 2016b).
Fourth (4), in general, many items in the questionnaires are responded to at the positive end of the five- or seven-points Likert scale (Table 2.1, [f]). For example, concerning entrepreneurial motivation in the study of Eijdenberg and Masurel (2013), the items were measured on a five-point Likert scale where 1 represents “Strongly disagree” and 5 represents “Strongly agree”. The majority of the items were reported by the respondents as higher than a mean of 3.5. Another example, concerning entrepreneurial orientation is that the items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale, where 1 represents “Strongly disagree” and 7 represents “Strongly agree”. Again, the majority of the items were reported by the respondents at the higher, positive end of the seven-point Likert scale (Eijdenberg 2016b).
Finally (5), most of the findings are shaped by their sample in terms of the size, the sampling method, the characteristics of the sector, the applied analysis methodology, the location of the data collection and the time of the data collection (Table 2.1, [g]). Therefore, the findings should be interpreted with some reservations. As discussed in the previous section on empirical studies, decisions concerning the data collection on location were predominantly theoretically driven, but inevitably pragmatic choices were also made, because many challenges needed to be dealt with. For example, I needed to consider my own time limits, personal safety, climate, local cultural habits such as national holidays and working hours, the dispersion of the respondents across the region or the city, the availability of the respondents, the attainability of the respondents by the – sometimes scarce – availability of transportation modes and the input of local support such as language interpreters, and the assistance of the local authorities, such as the municipality and the Chamber of Commerce.
Possible Explanations for the Limitations
There are a number of reasons that can cause one or more of the previously mentioned research limitations. Two reasonable explanations stem from the economic and cultural context in which the data collection has taken place. This can lead to several response biases, in particular concerning the interpretation of items, the ability to recall certain events, the social desirability of responding, and the perceptions and expectations from both the respondents and the researcher.
Economically Determined
The economic context of the East African ldcs is one possible reason why the used literature on entrepreneurial motivation, effectuation and causation orientations, and entrepreneurial orientation, from Western studies largely do not apply to East African ldcs. The data collection took place in four of the world’s poorest countries. These countries have very low scores of gross national income per capita; a very low score on the human asset index on the basis of the percentage of the population malnourished, the mortality rate among children up to five years, the secondary school enrolment ratio, and adult literacy; and a high economic vulnerability, which comprises the structural vulnerability to exogenous economic and environmental shocks, such as the instability of the exports of goods and services and the risk of becoming victims of national disasters (United Nations 2015). These countries, as far back as comparisons can be made with more advanced economies in Western society, have almost always been economically underdeveloped and, while making progress, the prospects are not very prosperous for the not too distant future. Unlike Western society, people in East African ldcs are generally less educated, in terms of the degree to which they have obtained or the quality of their education, and have been exposed to less, or at least different, opportunities from environmental change and technological innovations. As a consequence of these pressing circumstances, people have little influence on the growth of their small businesses. Therefore, it can be assumed that these people generally do not fit with the Austrian economists’ conception of the acting individual who operates as an independent economic entity, and that the society’s conditions are largely influenced by the individual’s own actions (Kirzner 1997; Schumpeter 1934). On the contrary, in East African ldcs the society’s conditions, such as the poor economy, largely influence the individual’s actions and how eventually their businesses grow (Liedholm 2002). Hence, the respondents might give different answers from the reality or from what was expected from the literature, and the interviews in the pre-studies.
Culturally Determined
Another possible reason relates to the cultural aspects of the context of East African ldcs. The respondent’s ability to interpret the item (Table 2.1, [h]); the ability to recall (Table 2.1, [i]); and the pressure to give a socially desirable answer (Table 2.1, [j]) might disturb the results. Apparently in the studies in the East African ldcs, direct items may be “too direct” for the respondents; while the indirect items describe an event that covers the theoretical concept where the respondents feel more related to. Direct items can be answered negatively, because the respondents feel too proud to admit, while indirect items can describe an event on which the respondent knows how to answer such items socially desirable. Furthermore, also responding at the higher, positive ends of the five- or seven-point Likert scales can be due to social desirability (the tension to answer positively) and this can also be sector-dependent (e.g. sectors that are visibly on the rise, such as the mobile telecom industry between 2000 and 2010). The interpretation of the questionnaires by the respondents can differ per sample: it is likely that samples with higher-educated respondents, for example in the financial service sector, have different abilities in item interpretation than respondents from samples used in the studies in the East African ldcs, such as the mama lishe. In addition, many items in the questionnaires were assessed to measure the phenomenon at the start of the business. Therefore, there can be a recall bias/memory effect with the respondent, in particular concerning the small business growth measures such as the value of the housing or the value of the sales over a certain period of time. Most of
Another possible explanation might stem from the respondent’s perception of the data collection and the respondent’s expectations of the researcher. It is possible that the different perceptions have their roots in sub-Saharan Africa’s Ubuntu, in particular sharing and collectivism (Saule 1998) and other typical African values and beliefs (see Munene et al. 2000: 342), such as seeing advancement or success as being dependent on loyalty to powerful others. These values and beliefs might also be the reason why small business growth is not explained by the theoretical subjects: the fruits of growth are shared first among relatives, i.e. the extended family (Khavul et al. 2009) before they influence the growth of the small business. Thus, owners do not feel the urge to grow their small business from the start. The dependency on the loyalty to powerful others might explain why many small business owners are impervious to entrepreneurial motivation, effectuation and causation orientations, and entrepreneurial orientation: none of this matters as long as their success is dependent on others in their network. These “others” can be people or organisations in the small business owner’s network (as illustrated by, for example, Khavul et al. 2009; Khayesi et al. 2014; Kiggundu 2002; Luke et al. 2004; McDade and Spring 2005; Ramachandran and Shah 1999; Rutashobya and Jaensson 2004). Hence, the respondents might give answers in the questionnaires that differ from the reality or from what is expected on the basis of the pre-studies and the literature review.
Finally, an explanation can be found in African cultural attitudes, such as to “fully trust relatives but not strangers” (Munene et al. 2000: 342). My experience at the time of the data collection was that I was perceived by the respondents more as a journalist than as a researcher (Table 2.1, [k]). During the different rounds of data collection in the East African ldcs, I found that the rounds of data collection often attracted much attention from others in the immediate surroundings, which may have caused social pressure on the respondent while filling out the questionnaire. In regard to the respondent’s misperception of me, the researcher, being a journalist, the respondents often experienced the data collection on the spot either as a positive event, to which many people from the local community were invited, or as a negative event, in which the respondents refused to cooperate because of suspicions about my integrity, even though I was accompanied by local assistants (Table 2.1, [l]). In addition, as I was the researcher and not a local person, the respondents often perceived the event of the data collection as an opportunity to take advantage and to demand incentives, i.e. money, for filling out the questionnaires (Table 2.1, [m]). Moreover, there was a difference in the expectations of the researcher, on the basis of the literature and the perception of the reality by experts in the pre-studies, and the small business owners in the main studies about certain events. For example, with regard to the effectuation and causation orientations: small business owners were expected to be predominantly effectuation-oriented (as indicated by the local experts in the pre-study and as expected by me, the researcher, on the basis of the literature), but the small business owners reported themselves to be mainly causation-oriented (Eijdenberg et al. 2017).
Recommendations for Future Research
With regard to the previously mentioned methodological concerns, a number of recommendations for future research can be made. The first recommendation concerns the context of the East African ldcs. Scholars are encouraged to study the theoretical subjects from Table 2.1 beyond the context of East African ldcs in order to increase generalisability and make cross-country comparisons, for example with non-African ldcs, such as Cambodia or the Lao People’s Democratic Republic in South East Asia (United Nations 2015).
Second, the main causes of the previously mentioned methodological concerns are that they are embedded in the construct validity and scale reliability, and the respondent’s perception of the data collection and the respondent’s expectations of the researcher. I recommend that other researchers consider and use alternative items and scales when conducting questionnaires. For example, avoid direct items in questionnaires and make use of a limited response possibility, such as a three-point Likert scale, as opposed to a seven-point Likert scale, to reduce complexity. Further, I invite other researchers to
Third, if certain theoretical subjects or indicators fail to show any significance, or causal effects remain absent, I would invite researchers to use theoretical subjects and indicators from other scientific disciplines that do work. This is referred to by Naudé (2010) as the “scholarly disconnection”: for long, scientific disciplines have developed rapidly over the past five decades, but have failed to integrate. A valuable example of the integration of scientific disciplines could be the use performance indicators from development ... economics (for example consumer durables like owning a television and a refrigerator) (see, for example, Booysen et al. 2008; Filmer and Pritchett 2001; Pouw and Elbers 2012) in entrepreneurship literature. These indicators might be more relevant in the context of East African ldcs than indicators from entrepreneurship literature, such as the value of the sales.
Fourth, it is recommended that future research should go beyond the sample limitations of the studies in the East African ldcs. During the rounds of data collection, certain pragmatic choices were made, because I needed to deal with many previously-mentioned challenges for example, concerns about my personal safety; the climate; local cultural habits, such as national holidays and working hours; the dispersion of the respondents in a region or a city; the availability of the respondents; the availability of transportation modes; and the input from local support such as language interpreters and the assistance of local authorities such as the municipality and the Chamber of Commerce. Research on more and different samples, for example, the furniture sector in Tanzania (Isaga 2015; Isaga et al. 2015), would enrich the findings in terms of variety and generalisability.
Fifth, future researchers are encouraged to study beyond the time constraints of the data collections in the studies in East African ldcs. The collection of data at a different time might produce different findings; for example, because another type of business, which is dependent on social and economic
Finally, while common research methodologies are applied in the studies of East African ldcs and the use of a certain methodology is largely dependent on the status of the literature that is being reviewed (Edmonson and McManus 2007), future researchers are encouraged to make use of different methodologies. Examples of different methodologies are experimental designs and observations. These methodologies could complement the use of questionnaires, interviews, and focus groups. There are examples of qualitative studies (e.g. Khavul et al. 2009; Langevang et al. 2012) that reveal rich insights into the theoretical subjects from Table 2.1. That is, the setting of the data collection should be a key element in the choice of a research methodology, despite what the status of prior theory and research prescribes researchers to use (Edmonson and McManus 2007).
References
Ahiazu A. (1995). “The Type A Method for Management Research in Africa. Enunciating a Culture-Specific Paradigm”. Paper presented at a regional seminar on Culture Dimensions to Appropriate Management in Africa. Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University.
Akong’a J. (1995). “The Growth-Positive and Growth-Negative Cultural Characteristics in African Societies”. Paper presented at a regional seminar on Culture Dimensions to Appropriate Management in Africa, Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University.
Audretsch D.B. , Keilbach M.C. & E.E. Lehmann (2006). Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth.New York: Oxford University Press.
Baker T. , Gedajlovic E. & M. Lubatkin (2005). “A Framework for Comparing Entrepreneurship across Nations”. Journal of International Business Studies, 36(5), 492–504.
Basu R.R. , Banerjee P.M. & E.G. Sweeny (2013). “Frugal Innovation: Core Competencies to Address Global Sustainability”. Journal of Management for Global Sustainability, 1(2), 63–82.
Baumol W.J. , Litan R.E. & C.J. Schramm (2007). Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism and the Economics of Growth and Prosperity.New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Blunt P. & M.L. Jones (1992). Managing Organizations in Africa.Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Booysen F. , Van der Berg S. , Burger R. , Von Maltitz M. & G. Du Rand (2008). “Using an Asset Index to Assess Poverty Trends in Seven sub-Saharan African Countries”. World Development, 36(6), 1113–1130.
Brettel M. , Mauer R. , Engelen A. & D. Küpper (2012). “Corporate Effectuation: Entrepreneurial Action and its Impact on R&D Project Performance”. Journal of Business Venturing, 27(2), 167–184.
Central Intelligence Agency . (2015a). The World Factbook: Burundi. Retrieved 30 March 2015, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/by.html.
Central Intelligence Agency . (2015b). The World Factbook: Rwanda. Retrieved 30 March 2015, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rw.html.
Central Intelligence Agency (2015c). The World Factbook: Tanzania. Retrieved 30 March 2015, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tz.html.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2015d). The World Factbook: Uganda. Retrieved 30 March 2015, from Central Intelligence Agency: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ug.html.
Collier P. (2007). The Bottom Billion: Why the Poorest Countries are Failing and What Can Be Done About It.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dau R.K. (2003). “Trends in Social Security in East Africa: Tanzania, Kenya and Uganda”. International Social Security Review, 56(3–4), 25–37.
East African Community. (2014). One People One Community. Retrieved 10 October 2014, from East African Community: http://www.eac.int/.
Edmonds M. , Mills G. & T. McNamee (2009). “Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration and Local Ownership in the Great Lakes: The Experience of Rwanda, Burundi, and the Democratic Republic of Congo”. African Security, 2(1), 29–58.
Edmondson A.C. & S.E. McManus (2007). “Methodological Fit in Management Field Research”. The Academy of Management Review, 32(4), 1246–1264.
Eijdenberg E.L. (2016a). Small Business Growth in East African Least Developed Countries – Unravelling the Role of the Small Business Owners. PhD dissertation, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Alblasserdam: HAVEKA.
Eijdenberg E.L. (2016b). “Does One Size Fit All? A Look at Entrepreneurial Motivation and Entrepreneurial Orientation in the Informal Economy of Tanzania”. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research,22(6), 804–834.
Eijdenberg E.L. & E. Masurel (2013). “Entrepreneurial Motivation in a Least Developed Country: Push Factors and Pull Factors among MSEs in Uganda”. Journal of Enterprising Culture, 21(1), 1–25.
Eijdenberg E.L. , Paas L.J. & E. Masurel (2015). “Entrepreneurial Motivation and Small Business Growth in Rwanda”. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(3), 212–240.
Eijdenberg E.L. , Paas L.J. , & E. Masurel (2017). “Decision-Making and Small Business Growth in Burundi”. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 9(1), 35–64.
Eisenhardt K.M. (1989). “Building Theories from Case Study Research”. The Academy of Management Journal, 14(4), 532–550.
Filmer D. & L. Pritchett . (2001). “Estimating Wealth Effects Without Expenditure Data or Tears: An Application to Educational Enrolments in States of India”. Demography, 38(1), 115–132.
Frese M. , Brantjes A. & R. Hoorn (2002). “Psychological Success Factors of Small-Scale Businesses in Namibia: The Roles of Strategy Process, Entrepreneurial Orientation and the Environment”. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 259–282.
Frese M. , Krauss S.I. , Keith N. , Escher S. , Grabarkiewicz R. & S. Tonje Luneng (2007). “‘Business Owners’ Action Planning and Its Relationship to Business Success in Three African Countries”. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(6), 1481–1498.
Gartner W.B. & S. Birley (2002). “Introduction to the Special Issue on Qualitative Research Methods in Entrepreneurship Research”. Journal of Business Venturing, 17(5), 387–395.
Glaser B. & A. Strauss (1967). The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies of Qualitative Research. London: Wiedenfeld and Nicholson.
Hagos G. (2000). Gender Divide Stifles Women Entrepreneurs. Retrieved 5 December 2014, from Pan African News Agency.
Hanson S. (2009). “Changing Places Through Women’s Entrepreneurship”. Economic Geography, 85(3), 245–267.
Hjorth D. , Jones C. & W.B. Gartner (2008). “Introduction for ‘Recreating/Recontextualising Entrepreneurship’”. Scandinavian Journal of Management, 24(2), 81–84.
Hughes M. & R.E. Morgan (2007). “Deconstructing the Relationship between Entrepreneurial Orientation and Business Performance at the Embryonic Stage of Firm Growth”. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(5), 651–661.
Isaga N. (2015). “Owner-Managers’ Demographic Characteristics and the Growth of Tanzanian Small and Medium Enterprises”. International Journal of Business and Management, 10(5), 168–181.
Isaga N. , Masurel E. & K. van Montfort (2015). “Owner-Manager Motives and the Growth of SMEs in Developing Countries: Evidence from the Furniture Industry in Tanzania”. Journal of Entrepreneurship in Emerging Economies, 7(3), 190–211.
Jackson T. (2004). Management and Change in Africa: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. London: Routledge.
Joergensen J.J. (1990). “Organizational Life-cycle and Effectiveness Criteria in State-owned Enterprises: The Case of East Africa”. In: A.M. Jaeger & R.N. Kanungo , Management in Developing Countries. London: Routledge, 62–82.
Johns G. (2006). “The Essential Impact of Context on Organizational Behaviour”. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 386–408.
Khavul S. & G.D. Bruton (2013). “Harnessing Innovation for Change: Sustainability and Poverty in Developing Countries”. Journal of Management Studies, 50(2), 285–306.
Khavul S. , Bruton G D. & E. Wood (2009). “Informal Family Business in Africa”. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 33(6), 1219–1238.
Khayesi J.N. , George G. & J. Antonakis (2014). “Kinship in Entrepreneur Networks: Performance Effects of Resource Assembly in Africa”. Entrepreneurship: Theory & Practice, 38(6), 1323–1342.
Kiggundu M.N. (1989). Managing Organizations in Developing Countries. Sterling, VA: Kumarian Press.
Kiggundu M.N. (2002). “Entrepreneurs and Entrepreneurship in Africa: What is Known and What Needs to be Done”. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 17(3), 239–258.
Kirkwood J. (2009). “Motivational Factors in a Push-Pull Theory of Entrepreneurship”. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 24(5), 346–364.
Kirzner I.M. (1997). “Entrepreneurial Discovery and the Competitive Market Process: An Austrian Approach”. Journal of Economic Literature, 35(1), 60–85.
Kolk A. & R. van Tulder (2010). “International Business, Corporate Social Responsibility and Sustainable Development”. International Business Review, 19(2), 119–125.
Krauss S.I. , Frese M. , Fiedrich M. & J.M. Unger (2005). “Entrepreneurial Orientation: A Psychological Model of Success among Southern African Small Business Owners”. European Journal of Work & Organizational Psychology, 14(3), 315–344.
Kriauciunas A. , Parmigiani A. & M. Rivera-Santos (2011). “Leaving our Comfort Zone: Integrating Established Practices with Unique Adaptations to Conduct Survey-based Strategy Research in Non-traditional Contexts”.Strategic Management Journal, 32(9), 994–1010.
Kristiansen S. (2002). “Individual Perception of Business-Context: The Case of Small-scale Entrepreneurs in Tanzania”. Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, 7(3), 283–304.
Kuzilwa J.A. (2005). “The Role of Credit for Small Business Success: A Study of the National Entrepreneurship Development Fund in Tanzania”. Journal of Entrepreneurship, 14(2), 131–161.
Langevang T. , Namatovu R. & S. Dawa (2012). “Beyond Necessity and Opportunity Entrepreneurship: Motivations and Aspirations of Young Entrepreneurs in Uganda”. International Development Planning Review, 34(4), 439–459.
Langevang T. & K.V. Gough (2012). “Diverging Pathways: Young Female Employment and Entrepreneurship in Sub‐Saharan Africa”. The Geographical Journal, 178(3), 242–252.
Liedholm T. C. (2002). “Small firm dynamics: evidence from Africa and Latin America”. Small Business Economics, 18(1), 225–240.
Luke N. , Munshi K. & M. Rosenzweig (2004). “Marriage, Networks and Jobs in Third World Cities”.Journal of the European Economic Association, 2(2–3),437 –446.
Lyons M. , Brown A. & C. Msoka (2014). “Do Micro Enterprises Benefit from the ‘Doing Business’ Reforms? The Case of Street-vending in Tanzania”. Urban Studies, 51(8), 1593–1612.
Mbiti L. & J. Maree (1996). Ubuntu: The Spirit of African Transformation Management.Randburg: Sigma Press.
McDade B.E. & A. Spring (2005). “The ‘New Generation of African Entrepreneurs’: Networking to Change the Climate for Business and Private Sector-led Development”. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 17(1), 17–42.
Minniti M. & W.A. Naudé (2010). “What Do We Know About the Patterns and Determinants of Female Entrepreneurship across Countries?” European Journal of Development Research, 22(3), 277–293.
Molina-Azorín J.F. , López-Gamero M.D. , Pereira-Moliner J. & E.M. Pertusa-Ortega (2012). “Mixed Methods Studies in Entrepreneurship Research: Applications and Contributions”. Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 24(5–6), 425–456.
Mufune P. (2003). “African Culture and Managerial Behaviour: Clarifying the Connections”. South African Journal of Business Management, 34(3), 17–28.
Munene J.C. , Schwartz S.H. & P.B. Smith (2000). “Development in Sub-Saharan Africa: Cultural Influences and Managers’ Decision Behaviour”. Public Administration & Development, 20(4), 339.
Naudé W.A. (2010). “Entrepreneurship, Developing Countries, and Development Economics: New Approaches and Insights”. Small Business Economics, 34(1), 1–12.
Naudé W.A. (2011). “Entrepreneurship is Not a Binding Constraint on Growth and Development in the Poorest Countries”. World Development, 39(1), 33–44.
New Vision. (2007). The Rise and Rise of Lugabire. Retrieved 3 July 2016, from New Vision: http://www.newvision.co.ug/new_vision/news/1169407/rise-rise-lugabire.
Noorderhaven N.G. & B. Tidjani (2001). “Culture, Governance, and Economic Performance: An Exploratory Study with a Special Focus on Africa”. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 1(1), 31–52.
Nzelibe C. 1986. “The Evolution of African Management Thought”. International Studies of Management and Organization, 16(2), 6–16.
Onwuejeogwu M.A. (1995). “Development in Africa: Common Cultural Values Central for Effective Managerial and Administrative Training Programmes”. Paper presented at a regional seminar on cultural dimensions and appropriate and effective management in Africa, Kampala, Uganda: Makerere University.
Otite O. (1978). “The Introduction: The Study of Social Thought in Africa”. In: O. Otite , Themes in African Social and Political Thought. Enegu: Fourth Dimension Publishers, 1–34.
Overå R. (2007). “When Men Do Women’s Work: Structural Adjustment, Unemployment and Changing Gender Relations in the Informal Economy of Accra, Ghana”. Journal of Modern African Studies, 45(4), 539–563.
Pouw N. & C. Elbers (2012). “Modelling Priority Patterns in Asset Acquisition: The Case of Smallholder Farmers in Three Rural Districts in Uganda”. Journal of Development Studies, 48(9), 1360–1374.
Powell B. (2008). Making Poor Nations Rich: Entrepreneurship and the Process of Economic Development. Oakland, CA: The Independent Institute.
Ramachandran V. & M.K. Shah (1999). “Minority Entrepreneurs and Firm Performance in Sub‐Saharan Africa”. The Journal of Development Studies, 36(2), 71–87.
Rao B.C. “How Disruptive is Frugal?”. Technology in Society, 35(1), 65–73.
Rooks G. , Sserwanga A. & M. Frese (2014). “Unpacking the Personal Initiative – Performance Relationship: A Multi-group Analysis of Innovation by Ugandan Rural and Urban Entrepreneurs”. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 65(1), 1–33.
Rousseau D.M. & Y. Fried (2001). “Location, Location, Location: Contextualizing Organizational Research”. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(1),1–13.
Rutashobya L. & J.-E. Jaensson (2004). “Small Firms’ Internationalization for Development in Tanzania”. International Journal of Social Economics, 31(1/2), 159–172.
Sarasvathy S.D. (1998). How Do Firms Come to Be? Towards a Theory of the Prefirm.PhD dissertation. Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
Sarasvathy S.D. (2001). “Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Entrepreneurial Contingency”. The Academy of Management Review, 26(2), 243–263.
Saule N. (1998). “Images of Ubuntu in Essays of SEK Mqhayi in Umteteli Wzabantu”. South African Journal of African Languages, 18(1), 10–19.
Saunders M. , Lewis P. & A. Thornhill . (2012). Research Methods for Business Students (5th ed.). Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
Schneider F. (2005). “Shadow Economies Around the World: What Do I Really Know?” European Journal of Political Economy, 21(3), 598–642.
Schumpeter J.A. (1934). The Theory of Economic Development.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Snyder M. (2000). Women in Africa Economies: From Burning Sun to Boardroom.Kampala: Fountain Publishers.
Steyaert C. (1997). “A Qualitative Methodology for Process Studies of Entrepreneurship: Creating Local Knowledge Through Stories”. International Studies of Management and Organization, 27(3), 13–33.
Strier R. (2010). “Women, Poverty, and the Microenterprise: Context and Discourse”. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(2), 195–218.
Tabachnick B.G. & L.S. Fidell . (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics (5th ed.), Boston: Pearson Education.
United Nations (2015). UN Recognition of Least Developed Countries (LDCs). Retrieved 30 November 2015, from United Nations: http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/policy/cdp/ldc/ldc_list.pdf.
Van Gelderen M. & E. Masurel (2012). Entrepreneurship in Context. New York: Routledge.
Vaunne M. & T.J. Schoeneman (1997). “Individualism Versus Collectivism: A Comparison of Kenyan and American self-concepts”. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 19(2), 261–273.
Webb J.W. , Ireland R.D. & D.J. Ketchen Jr. (2014). “Toward a Greater Understanding of Entrepreneurship and Strategy in the Informal Economy”. Strategic Management Journal, 8(1), 1–15.
Welter F. (2011). “Contextualzing Entrepreneurship: Conceptual Challenges and Ways Forward”. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 35(1), 165–184.
Welter F. & M. Xheneti (2013). “Reenacting Contextual Boundaries: Entrepreneurial Resourcefulness in Challenging Environments”. In: A.C. Corbett & J. Katz , Entrpereneurial Resourcefulness: Competing with Constraints (Advances in Entrepreneurship, Firm Emergence and Growth, volume 15). Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 149–183.
Whetten D.A. (1989). “What Constitutes a Theoretical Contribution?” The Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 490–495.
World Bank. (2004). World Development Report 2005: A Better Investment Climate for Everyone.Washington, D.C.: World Bank and Oxford University Press.
Zahra S.A. & M. Wright (2011). “Entrepreneurship’s Next Act”. The Academy of Management Perspectives, 25(4), 67–83.
Zahra S.A. , Wright M. & S.G. Abdelgawad (2014). “Contextualization and the Advancement of Entrepreneurship Research”. International Small Business Journal, 32(5), 479–500.
This book chapter is inspired by Emiel Eijdenberg’s PhD dissertation entitled “Small business growth in East African Least Developed Countries – Unravelling the role of the small business owners” (Eijdenberg 2016a). On the basis of textual adjustments, some parts from the Introduction and Conclusions chapters of the PhD dissertation are used to enhance the fit in this book.
For an extensive literature review of the theoretical subjects in Table 2.1, see Eijdenberg (2016a,b), Eijdenberg and Masurel (2013) and